tv [untitled] March 22, 2012 5:30pm-6:00pm PDT
and now the planning commission will consider all of the rest of the items on this agenda. item 2-d for 8 washington is a request to consider whether the net new will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of a cumulative through river park to the project. president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'd like to move to consider whether the new shadow impact will be adverse and to authorize the allocation of the cumulative chatle. will not be adverse, of course. naturally. and then to authorize allocation of the cumulative shadow limit for the park to the project. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion that the new chatle will not be adverse and to authorize the allocation of
the cumulative chatle for the river park to this project of 8 washington. on that motion, -- [roll call] >> commissioners, item 2 e. the request for general plan amendments. within the northeastern area plan of the general plan. president fong: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'd like to remove request for a piping plan. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion before you for recommend approval of this map change -- >> [roll call]
thank you, commissioners. that motion passed 4-2. for item 2-f, this is consideration of a motion making findings with consistency with the general plan and priority policies of planning code session 101.1. this, the motion before you, with the amendments that were offered by staff earlier today. president fong: commissioner miguel? president miguel: i prove item 2 f with the amendment as stated by staff. president fong: second. >> on the motion before you for approval with the amendments offered by staff earlier today -- >> roll call] >> on item 2g, zoning map ht 01.
the southeastern areas of the development sites from 84 e to 92. and one portion in 136 e hite portion. commissioner antonini: move to reclassify zoning height and bulk, two areas of zoning map h-201, 1 southeastern area of the development site from 84 e to 92 e and another portion from 84 e to 136 e. commissioner miguel: second. >> on the motion of approval of the zoning map reclassification -- [roll call] that motion passed 4-2.
and finally, on the request for conditional use authorization with the modifications offered by staff earlier today, -- president fong: commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i move conditional use authorization with the amendments made by staff earlier today. >> second. >> on the motion to approve the conditional use authorization with the amendments offered by staff -- [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. it passes 4-. mr. president? president fong: that does take us into adjournment of the 10:00 a.m. joint meeting. [laughter] we're going to go right into our regular meeting. >> i just need a few minutes to shut this one down and to restart the planning commission
commissioners, the first category are calendar items proposed for cant wans. item one is case number 2011 .1293c. proposed for continuance to april 12, 2012. item number two, case number 2012 .0084 ddd for 2735 to 2737 baker streets, this item is currently on calendar proposed for cant wans to april 26, 2012. however, staff has informed me that the d.r. requesters are asking for continuance to be further out and you can take that at the call of that item. or after we announce all the items. item number three is case number 2011 .0148 e. the mini and lovey, proposed for
continuance to june 28, 2012. commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on this calendar being proposed for continuance. president fong: is there any public comment on these items? seeing none, commissioner miguel? commissioner miguel: i move the items -- i'm sorry. >> public comment. >> the 2735 matter. april 26 was the debt set by the department. but on account of our calendars, we cannot all be there that date, but we very much appreciate it if we could extend either to june 7 or june 21, which are both dates that we are able to make. all of us are here, by the way, there are two separate d.r. applications and two of our neighbors also. >> commissioners, in addition to the d.r. applicants, you need to make sure that the project
sponsor can be able for that date, and staff is available for that day. and i'm not sure who's here today or not. i would suggest that if the project sponsor is not here and we cannot confirm with the project sponsor and the d.r. requester that you continue it to the date proposed and staff will work with all parties to come up with a date that all parties can be available for, and on the 26th of april, you'll continue it to whatever date they come up with it. and only in the microphone, please. >> good evening. my name is brian soriano, i'm an attorney here representing the permit holder who is also here. he would like to oppose this request to further delay the hearing on this discretionary review. if you want me to address that now, i would, but i know that you were in a public comment
section. so if now is not the time you want those comments -- it is, ok. d.r.'s hearing was originally set for today's date, march 22, because on the last day possible, two of the private neighbors filed private request for discretionary review. that original march 22 date was already continued to april 26. they are now asking to push this out until a date in june when more of the people opposing the project can be present. i'm here to suggest that that is not a legitimate justification for the significant delay that they're asking for. and the burden that it places on the permit holder is undue. this process has been going on for a period of more than nine months, trying to work with the neighborhood association and accommodate them. there have been many revisions of the plans at a great cost to permit holder. from the planning commission's own website, there's a section that talks about the attempted d.r. reform, which acknowledges and recognizes the problems with
this discretionary review process, which points out that it makes the development process more lengthy and costly for all involved and that it takes nothing just to file the request. so those are the delays and problems and burdens placed on the permit holder in the normal situation, just by having discretionary review. here we have one that's already been continued for more than 30 days and now there's a request to put it out further into the summer until june. we would very much like to get on with this hearing and have it done. i think that the representatives from the city feel the same way. they can speak to that, if they like. the idea that they want subsequent date so many people can be here just really isn't appropriate. everyone has the right to put in their thoughts on the proposed project, but we can't accommodate a day where everyone who wants to be there can be there, or this could continue to be put off into the future.
people can submit written statements in advance of the hearing and they can prep neighbors, other association members or family members to represent their prepared words at the hearing. the idea that we have to look for a date that everybody that can be here -- and i'm not hearing that the actual people who filed discretionary review can't be here, but that their spouses or other members of the neighborhood who also want to put up their support can't be here. their support will be noted. there's a way for them to address that. we just don't think that this request justifies the burden it would place on the permit holder. president fong: thank you. >> thank you. president fong: >> commissioners, david lindsay from department staff. staff did select the april 26 date as what we thought was a reasonable date far enough out that most people could accommodate or make arrangements to attend. we did not consult with all individuals in selecting that date, because frankly, that's
often a futile process. we're prepared to go forward with whatever date the commission sees fit. president fong: is there additional public comment? you already had an opportunity. thank you very much. >> hi, i'm judith keyser -- >> can you speak right into that microphone? >> ok. i'm judith keyser, i'm the other d.r. applicant. i just want to give you my background. i hear that this has been going on for nine months. unfortunately, no one told me. and i did not find out about this project until march 3 when i had some held mail and was able to see this permit request or whatever it's called. therefore in the last week, i've had to scramble to get together -- and i called the folks and
they e-mailed me back. we haven't been able to -- they haven't acknowledged my interest in this, or my problems with this project. and apparently last summer, there was a meeting for the neighbors. i was never invited. i never heard about it. i knew nothing about this until this piece of paper showed up in my mail, you know, three weeks -- i was away for three weeks. and so i immediately called the other folks, and then on monday, was it the fifthish? i started asking questions and trying to get information and trying to get up to speed on this. this has a big impact on my unit and my house and i really sort of i'm not a general mob of people coming here because i want to support something. this is affecting me directly. it affects my family directly.
this is the place where i'm supposed to retire to. and i'm very upset to hear the way this was presented by the other side. i haven't had a chance -- my husband cannot be there. since we found out about it so late, he's giving a talk on the 26th in los angeles at 6:30. and the way these meetings seem to be running, it wouldn't work too well for him. and the next weekend, he's in denver giving a talk. and then we could work with mr. lindsay and ms. woods to try to figure out a time that works. now, the other d.r. person can't make it on other dates. so we've been working hard on this to figure this out. and it's been very upsetting to me. do you have any questions for me? i think you have a letter that spells all this out that i submitted as soon as i heard what the date was. do you have that letter? addressed to ms. avery?
no? president fong: thank you. commissioner miguel: we have the letter. >> i'm kelly con din, i'm the designer at the contract. i did interact with judith keyser -- our planner was also cc'd. she lives -- the reason that she was not notified, there's two reasons. the initial meeting was never required. we were not required to have any neighbor meetings. we've been meeting with the neighbors for nine months anyway. so not knowing that we've been meeting with with the association and cc'g 15 other people, personally me since december, is not the best excuse for a lack of notification that was never required in the first place. secondly, she lives more than one lot away, and her complaint is that she faces -- commissioner miguel: could we cut this off? >> she has a right to speak. commissioner miguel: on the